Have there been any miracles through the intercession of Father Seraphim Rose? I think not!

It is very shameful that you speak so definitively about a subject about which you are entirely ignorant. Have you read "Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works"? How can you comment about Fr. Seraphim without having known or at least read about him? In this book that I just referenced, you can read about miracles through his intercessions in the chapter appropriately called "With the Saints".

You may also find the following comments of interest, concerning how Fr. Seraphim was regarded immediately following his repose, taken from the book already mentioned:

Quote

Following his repose, many people hadvisions of him which confirmed that he was among the saints, and evenBishop Nektary of Seattle approached one of the sorrowful nuns wholooked upon the reposed Fr. Seraphim during his funeral and told her“Don’t pray for Fr. Seraphim, pray to him.”

On the fortieth day after his repose, following the Divine Liturgy andPannikhida at the grave, Bishop Nektary gave a homily which ended withthe phrase: “Fr. Seraphim was a righteous man, possibly a saint.” AsFr. Damascene relates, “Bishop Nektary was well qualified to make sucha statement, having been in close contact with saints both in Russianand the free world. The priest who was translating his sermon intoEnglish, however, hesitated in repeating this phrase, particularly thelast world. Calculating that such a bold affirmation might be riskysince other Church leaders had not yet expressed their opinion, thispriest asked Bishop Nektary if he had really meant what he said.Hitting the ground with his staff, the Bishop repeated, in Russian, ‘ASaint!’ – and the confused priest was obliged to render this word inEnglish.

”Having led a procession from the hillock of Fr. Seraphim’s grave, theBishop was about to enter the church, still holding a censer in hishand. Abruptly he turned around and, with great feeling, loudly beganto sing the glorification hymn to monk-saints: ‘We glorify thee, ourholy Father Seraphim, and we honor thy holy memory: instructor ofmonks, and converser with the angels.’ The monks, clergy and pilgrimsjoined in the singing, and the sorrow of being separated from Fr.Seraphim was again transformed into joy.”

Bishop Nektary of Seattle, who knew Fr. Seraphim very well in this life and considered him a saint after his repose, was a spiritual child of St. Nektary of Optina. Do you claim that Bishop Nektary did not know what he was talking about? Or, do you know better than Bp. Nektary? Rather it seems clear that your insistence that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint comes from either your ignorance about his life, his intercessions after his repose, and the veneration he receives throughout the Orthodox world.

Also you mentioned he is revered in Greece. I doubt it. Do you have any idea how many future saints they have had in the past decades, such as the Elder Ephraim who established the monasteries in this country.

You obviously did not reference the link that I provided. Fr. Peter Alban Heers, a priest who serves in Thessaloniki in Greece and frequents Mt. Athos, has a very good podcast on the subject of the veneration of Fr. Seraphim in Greece and throughout the world. Please listen to this or read the transcript if you want to be at least a little informed concerning this subject:

Concerning Elder Ephraim, Fr. Seraphim is much revered in Elder Ephraim’s monasteries. If you have regard for these monasteries, go and ask them about Fr. Seraphim and his veneration in Greece and on Mt. Athos.

Quote

Anyway I could go on and on, and somehow I just can't see Father Seraphim as having the pure soul and humility that's a perquisite for a saint.

Yet, you have shown that you hardly know anything about Fr. Seraphim’s life, the miracles that have resulted from his intercessions, and the veneration that he receives by faithful Orthodox Christians throughout the world.

You have not said anything in your post other than the opinion of a very opinionated bishop, also that he is highly venerated in certain places. In other words you are asking me to accept what Bishop Nektari said and what you are saying. Forget it! As I said, I have not found anything written by Father Seraphim Rose as being edifying to one's soul.

Now I'm not condemning him, but he is not a saint...so you can scream all you want. Besides, what do you care what my opinion is. If he is a saint, (which I'm sure he is not), God will show it to the world by performing mass miracles through his intercession. His body also won't corrupt. There might even be a flow and scent of myrhh from the coffin. This has happened quite often with the Grand Duchess Saint Elizabeth, and with Saint Demetrius the New Martyr of Tripoli.

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

I had read two books by Father Seraphim about thirty years ago, so I can't give you the quotes or specifics, but I do recall him saying some things about the Catholic Church, and to be honest I dislike elitism in any faith. Why not just exentuate our beliefs without mentioning another Church, because by doing so wouldn't you be denigrating it?

These and other comments lead me to wonder about your familiarity with the lives of the saints. In several posts you have rightly exalted St. Nektarios, but you have done so in order to attempt to draw a contrast to Fr. Seraphim in some ways. You recall (but without specific quotes) that Fr. Seraphim said things about the Roman Catholic Church that were denigrating, and this is one reason why you do not consider him a saint. What do you think, then, of what St. Nektarios said about the Roman Catholic Church? Do you know that he wrote an entire book on the Great Schism?

The saints, in their great love for mankind, earnestly desire the salvation of all. As such, they speak out about heresies which cut people off from the grace of God and which keep man from the possibility of theosis. Salvation is to be found only in the One Church, and that truth is defended by the saints not because they were elitist but because this is true. They could have kept silent about such truths, but doing so would only hinder people from leaving schisms and heresies to be united to the true Church which is the Ark of Salvation.

Since you do not seem to be familiar with St. Nektarios’ words concerning the Roman Catholic Church, here are some quotes from him that can be found in the book The Church Fathers on Love in Truth, published in Thessalonika, Greece by “Orthodox Kypseli Publications”. St. Nektarios’ complete book on the Schism has not yet been translated into English:

Quote

St. Nektarios said… “Neither the Papist nor the Protestant church can be considered as the True church of Christ. The first was altered by a number of innovations and the accursed despotism (Primacy) due to which resulted the schism from the Orthodox. The same goes for the Protestants whose innumerable innovations lead to total anarchy and chaos. Only the Orthodox church maintained the teachings of Christ flawlessly without a single innovation. Only in the Orthodox church does unity exist. The unity which the Savior was petitioning from the Father saying, ‘Holy Father keep them in your Name those you gave me so they can be one just like we are one. (John 17:11…)’.” (p.20)

“Those that are not reborn by the divine grace in the only ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, they do not consist of (comprise) any church, neither visible nor invisible.”

These are just a couple of quotes from St. Nektarios, but so many of our saints and fathers clearly and openly taught that Roman Catholics and Protestants have no sacraments, no theosis, and no salvation. Read St. Mark of Ephesus’ clear declaration that “Latins are heretics”, or the many words form St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain that Latins (Roman Catholics) are heretics and do not have true baptisms or sacraments, or the words of St. Paisius (Velichkovsky) to an Eastern Rite Catholic priest instructing him to enter the Orthodox Church lest he repose outside of the Orthodox Church and be counted among the unbelievers, or the words of St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) in the article concerning the “Impossibility of Salvation for the Heterodox and Heretics”, or the scathing words of St. Justin (Popovich) of Chilije concerning heretical Roman Catholicism. Read what St. Theophan the Recluse wrote concerning Protestantism (from the book “Preaching Another Christ”), or what Elder Cleopa of Romania said concerning Protestantism (“The Truth of Our Faith”). None of the Orthodox saints or Fathers spoke of Roman Catholicism or Protestantism as in any way leading man towards salvation and theosis. In fact, they taught the exact opposite, and they did so with hope for the salvation of all in the Orthodox Church.

I read the interview by Father Damascene that was posted, and he's the one that said that Father Seraphim Rose spoke about himself quite often. The way I took it was that he spoke about his life before becoming a monk. As for the Elders Porphyrios and the Elder Paissios, I don't believe they ever spoke about their life before becoming monks. I never read anything about their childhood other than the Godfather of Elder Paissios was a saint. These two elders were also given a great many charisms, and there were times they would mention them, but if these things denoted pride in anyway, they wouldn't have the charisms would they?

I really cannot comment on your objections to Fr. Seraphim speaking about himself without a quote and a link so that I can see what was said and the context. As “jckstraw72” also suggested, the Life of Fr. Seraphim (which you say you haven’t read) does say the opposite; that Fr. Seraphim would not speak of his former life. You are correct that in general monastics are not to speak about their former life in the world. As I understand it, this is particularly the case when a monastic is young and inexperienced because such speech could encourage fantasy about one’s former life similar to the fantasies that the Israelites had of Egypt when they were passing through the desert. Such thought and speech is like putting one’s hand to the plow and looking back, and can lead to half-heartedness, a weakening of resolve, and possibly the abandonment of monastic vows and a return to the world. Refraining from such speech and thought helps a monastic understand that they have died to the world, they have abandoned their former lives, and they now live only for Christ.

Monastics (and non-monastics) are also not supposed to speak openly about their struggles, experiences, and progress as this could lead to pride and delusion. While this is the case, the lives of the saints are filled with examples of experienced saints speaking of their life in the world as well as their ascetic practices and experiences, with humility, if such words could be helpful and edifying to their spiritual children. You mention that you don’t believe that Elder Porphyrios or Elder Paisios spoke of their lives before becoming monks, but that is actually not true. In both of their lives you can find direct quotes from them where they tell stories from their childhood and their life before monasticism for the sake of instructing and edifying the listener. If you have the recently published (in English) book on Elder Paisios by Hieromonk Isaac, flip through the first part of the book regarding the Elder’s childhood and see how many stories are direct quotes from Elder Paisios about his childhood.

So, monastics may speak of themselves and their former life in a way that is prideful, sinful, and could lead to temptation; and monastics may speak of themselves in such a way that is humble and only for the purpose of helping a person in need. Without the quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you are referring to, I cannot comment more specifically on your allegations in this context.

In conclusion, I sincerely recommend that you familiarize yourself with the life of Fr. Seraphim and with the lives of the many glorified saints of our Church. There is so much to learn from them, and we should constantly strive to think, feel, believe, and act as they did. If our minds are in conformity with theirs, then our minds will be in conformity with Christ’s; and if our minds are in conformity with Christ’s, they will be in conformity with the minds of the saints and Fathers of the Church. Then we will understand what makes for true sanctity, and we ourselves will be well on our way towards theosis.

When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt. If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece? I know that Saint Nektarios loved his Church and considered it a martyred Church, I also know that he had theological discourses with a Catholic Cardinal and said that they were wrong in something, what though I don't know? I'm assuming the correspondence was either in French or Latin, and it would be nice if the letters could be published in English, so we would have a true idea of Saint Nektarios' theological views, rather than interpretations from some fundamentalist and/or provincial mind sets.

The priesthood in Greece at that time was merely an occupation, and it was only when Saint Nektarios became the head of the Rizarios School, and punished himself when the students misbehaved by not eating for three days, that inspired them to become true priests. In other words, Saint Nektarios saved the Church in Greece from atheist communism.

I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace. So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me. I'm close to other saints as well....

When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.

I did not provide you with an interpretation of St. Nektarios’ words, but direct quotations. In these quotations, you read St. Nektarios’ words first hand. I also referenced many other saints who taught similarly, and in doing so I referred to their actual writings and not to what others have said about their writings. I would hope that you would not take the writings of the saints with a grain of salt, which is rather dismissive.

If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Yes, but this case with Elder Paisios had to do with stories circulating about him, or thing supposedly said or prophesied by him. With regard to the quotation I gave from St. Nektarios and the references I made to the same teaching from other saints, these are writings of the saints that are not disputed. These words do not come to us from oral tradition with an unknown chain of communication, but are rather from the very pens of the saints.

Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece?

Communism was not the only challenge to Orthodoxy at that time, but there were also the Latinizing influences. To say that St. Nektarios “bashed” Roman Catholics and Protestants is unbecoming. He spoke the truth concerning them for the edification and salvation of those who might read his words, and for the sake of maintaining the purity of Holy Orthodoxy free from heresies, schisms, and innovations.

I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace. So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me. I'm close to other saints as well....

You also do not know of my reverence for St. Nektarios, the many ways that he has helped me at critical times, or how I overcame cancer through his heavenly intercessions. Yet, while he has interceded for and helped our family greatly, this fact does not imply that I know anything about what St. Nektarios believed and taught. I had to read his writings to understand his teaching. If St. Nektarios has appeared to you and revealed that he actually believed quite differently regarding Roman Catholicism than what he wrote and published, then that would be interesting, but I would tend to think that it is not St. Nektarios appearing to you if this is the case.

Don’t take my word for anything, but also do not depend so much on your own ideas about the lives and teachings of the saints without first familiarizing yourself with them.

When monks and priests interpret writings of saints, they have a tendency of putting in their own prejudices and beliefs, so since I'm not reading Saint Nektarios' writings first hand, I'll have to take what you're saying with a grain of salt.

I did not provide you with an interpretation of St. Nektarios’ words, but direct quotations. In these quotations, you read St. Nektarios’ words first hand. I also referenced many other saints who taught similarly, and in doing so I referred to their actual writings and not to what others have said about their writings. I would hope that you would not take the writings of the saints with a grain of salt, which is rather dismissive.

[/quote]

If the quotes are not in Church Greek, then they are interpretations of Saint Nektarios writings, because they are going from one language where words have certain concepts, into another language where words have different concepts. Add to that the translator who has his own ideas and prejudices, and then the editor....and guess what? The end product is a wee bit different. I'll explain it further down.

If I recall correctly, the Elder Paissios was shocked, not only on how his words were being misinterpreted, but how many things were attributed to him that he had never said.

Yes, but this case with Elder Paisios had to do with stories circulating about him, or thing supposedly said or prophesied by him. With regard to the quotation I gave from St. Nektarios and the references I made to the same teaching from other saints, these are writings of the saints that are not disputed. These words do not come to us from oral tradition with an unknown chain of communication, but are rather from the very pens of the saints.

[/quote]

I explained how easily words can be misinconstrued. As I said, I know that Saint Nektarios felt that the Orthodox Church was being martyred, and that he had theological discourses with a Catholic theologian and told him that they were in error in something. Does this sound like a man that would say what you posted? I think not!

Right now you're telling me that at a time when Christianity was fighting for its life in Greece and all of Europe because of communism, that Saint Nektarios concerned himself in bashing the RCC and the Protestants rather than with the survival of Christianity in Greece?

Communism was not the only challenge to Orthodoxy at that time, but there were also the Latinizing influences. To say that St. Nektarios “bashed” Roman Catholics and Protestants is unbecoming. He spoke the truth concerning them for the edification and salvation of those who might read his words, and for the sake of maintaining the purity of Holy Orthodoxy free from heresies, schisms, and innovations.

[/quote]

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence. The only people that remained Catholic from the time of the Fourth Crusade, were on a few islands, and since the people on those islands are more devout, I would say the influence is good. Now here's the problem with the Greek monks and bishops. They are assuming the influence of the secular ideas of the Enlighenment was coming from the Catholic Church, in the same way that they assume the heresy of Barlaam that St. Gregory Palamas was fighting, was the same as the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas. This is why I take their Saint's quotes about the Catholics with a grain of salt.

As for the Protestants, there were American missionary schools throughout Anatolia to serve the Orthodox Christians. This was not a problem for the Orthodox at the time, because they were striving to have intercommunion with the Anglicans/Episcopalians. See, now you just learned something....

I also know Saint Nektarios quite well, since he has performed countless miracles for me... the greatest of which was to bring two people I loved dearly into God's saving Grace. So since you have no idea what my connection is with Saint Nektarios, I'd prefer it you didn't lecture me. I'm close to other saints as well....

You also do not know of my reverence for St. Nektarios, the many ways that he has helped me at critical times, or how I overcame cancer through his heavenly intercessions. Yet, while he has interceded for and helped our family greatly, this fact does not imply that I know anything about what St. Nektarios believed and taught. I had to read his writings to understand his teaching. If St. Nektarios has appeared to you and revealed that he actually believed quite differently regarding Roman Catholicism than what he wrote and published, then that would be interesting, but I would tend to think that it is not St. Nektarios appearing to you if this is the case.

Don’t take my word for anything, but also do not depend so much on your own ideas about the lives and teachings of the saints without first familiarizing yourself with them.

[/quote]

Saint Nektarios has never appeared to me, so I'm not prelest. Give it up!

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence.

Zenovia, your statements are increasingly embarrassing in their ignorance. There was a significant Latinizing influence among the Orthodox in many regions of Greece during the Venetian period, notably in the Peloponnese, in the eastern half of the mainland, Crete, the Dodecanese islands, the Ionian islands, and, yes, even Corfu (Kerkyra), where St Nektarios hailed from. This is reflected in many ways to this day, such as in the decorative styles of churches, the westernising of iconography and perpetuation of non-canonical images such as the "NT Trinity", and of kneeling at the epiklesis and at other times during the Liturgy.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

Again, this thread is about Fr. Seraphim. So far, Zenovia, it appears that your problem with him is entirely personal and based only on your own prejudices and theories that have developed without proper attention to the life and teachings of Fr. Seraphim, or the lives and teachings of the many glorified saints of the Church. If you want to draw attention to specific quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you find problematic, then perhaps there would be something worth discussing, but you really need to first familiarize yourself with Fr. Seraphim and his writings before making such absolute declarations regarding him and the state of his soul before God.

Greek Orthodox theology, since the eighteenth and even seventeenth centuries, but especially since the establishment of modern Greece as a free nation, certainly has encountered the West, yet not so much to hold dialogue with it and to strengthen it with a strong Orthodox consciousness, as to accept its influence passively and uncritically. Often it has absorbed, even unchanged, the criteria, the methodology and many particular viewpoints of Western theology.

The encounter of Greek Orthodox theology in recent times with the West is a subject worthy of study in itself. Here it can be touched only briefly, even though it represents an essential aspect of our topic. One could say that, from the last centuries of Turkish occupation until today, Greek intellectuals have shown an unbounded and almost child-like admiration of all the developments of Western rationalism. Emerging from the intellectual darkness of Ottoman oppression, the Greeks looked to the West as a beacon of civilization and science. Whatever ideas of progress they were able to conceive were automatically patterned on Western models. During the last centuries of Otto-man rule Church intellectuals such as, for example, Vikentios Damodos, Nikiphoros Theotokis, Evgenios Voulgaris, Neophytos Vamvas and others endeavoured to bring about a religious rebirth among the enslaved Greek people, bringing into the sphere of Greek life and thought the problematics of Western Christianity. In their works and sermons one can find unchanged many typical ideas of pietism, natural theology, the religion of feeling, ‘Christianity as culture’ (Kulturchristentum), and in general of Western theology as it was under the influence of the Enlightenment.

With the establishment of a university in the free Greek nation and the rise of academic theology, the influence of Western theology increased and dominated. In the university theology took on the form of an autonomous science organized according to Western prototypes alone. From the beginning Greek Orthodox academic theology was a mixture of pietism and rationalism. Theology, organized on conceptual, demonstrative and apologetic models, was sharply separated from the life and piety of the Church. Formally it did not cease to be Orthodox, obedient to the letter of dogmatic formulations. However, the separation of dogmatic formulations from the experience and spirituality of the Church, accompanied by a uncritical acceptance of the spirit and methodology of Western theology, was precisely the most serious betrayal of the character of Orthodox theology.

The Western or Latin captivity of Orthodox theology in Greece has also been discussed at length by Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Florovsky, Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and others; should you wish to learn more about this as well.

Saint Nektarios also found time to write a large number of works on theology, ethics and Church history, in order to strengthen the Church of Greece in the holy tradition of the Fathers, which was often unknown in those days because of Western influences.

Then you have no knowledge of Greece, because there was no Latinizing influence.

Zenovia, your statements are increasingly embarrassing in their ignorance. There was a significant Latinizing influence among the Orthodox in many regions of Greece during the Venetian period, notably in the Peloponnese, in the eastern half of the mainland, Crete, the Dodecanese islands, the Ionian islands, and, yes, even Corfu (Kerkyra), where St Nektarios hailed from. This is reflected in many ways to this day, such as in the decorative styles of churches, the westernising of iconography and perpetuation of non-canonical images such as the "NT Trinity", and of kneeling at the epiklesis and at other times during the Liturgy.

Well if you consider things of that type Latinizing, then why not eliminate the bell towers, they were never Greek. Now to be serious, Saint Nektarios was not from Corfu, he was from a northern town of Greece that was still under the Ottomans. As for the Latins, well the Morea (Peloponesus) had three hundred and fifty crusader castles and surprise, surprise, the Franks are gone...well partially, they intermarried.

As for Latinizing in it's real sense, it seems the Greek monks and bishops can't make a distinction between the Latin Church and the secular concepts that were a product of the Enlightment. Whether it's from provincialism and ignorance, or from paranoia and fear, the fact that the Enlightment was directly opposed to the Catholic Church tends to elude them. If again they believe these ideals are an outshoot of the Latin culture, then I hate to break it to them, but the Enlightenment was a development from the Rennaissance, and the Rennaisance was a rebirth of Classical Greece which came in from the Italian colonies...So there you have it. The Latins are not to blame, the Greeks are.

Saint Nektarios also found time to write a large number of works on theology, ethics and Church history, in order to strengthen the Church of Greece in the holy tradition of the Fathers, which was often unknown in those days because of Western influences.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church. . The arguments the Greeks were using against the Orthodox Church in Greece, were the same as the ones being used against the Roman Church in places like Portugal and Spain. The ideals of the French revolution, and later the ideals of the Communist revolution came out of the Enlightenment, and they were in direct opposition to the Catholic Church. As an example, during the terror in France, half the people killed were Catholic priests.

This is reason I said that I take what the Greek monks and bishops write with a grain of salt, since they have no idea of Western history they tend to misinterpret the writings of saints in a way that reflects their own contemporary prejudices.

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

Again, this thread is about Fr. Seraphim. So far, Zenovia, it appears that your problem with him is entirely personal and based only on your own prejudices and theories that have developed without proper attention to the life and teachings of Fr. Seraphim, or the lives and teachings of the many glorified saints of the Church. If you want to draw attention to specific quotes from Fr. Seraphim that you find problematic, then perhaps there would be something worth discussing, but you really need to first familiarize yourself with Fr. Seraphim and his writings before making such absolute declarations regarding him and the state of his soul before God.

My problem is not with Father Seraphim, but with those who have turned him into some sort of personality cult and are insistent on having him glorified. They are putting something in their hands, when it is not they but God that should decide. If Father Seraphim is truly a saint, then the focus of those who follow him should be on Christ and not on him, because when they put their focus on him, he is being discredited by their very action.

If Father Seraphim has truly achieved sanctity in the eyes of God, and has shown himself to be pure hearted and virtuous above and beyond all others, then they need not to do anything. The clamoring of the people who have experienced miracles through his intercession, will be enough.

Greek Orthodox theology, since the eighteenth and even seventeenth centuries, but especially since the establishment of modern Greece as a free nation, certainly has encountered the West, yet not so much to hold dialogue with it and to strengthen it with a strong Orthodox consciousness, as to accept its influence passively and uncritically. Often it has absorbed, even unchanged, the criteria, the methodology and many particular viewpoints of Western theology.

The encounter of Greek Orthodox theology in recent times with the West is a subject worthy of study in itself. Here it can be touched only briefly, even though it represents an essential aspect of our topic. One could say that, from the last centuries of Turkish occupation until today, Greek intellectuals have shown an unbounded and almost child-like admiration of all the developments of Western rationalism. Emerging from the intellectual darkness of Ottoman oppression, the Greeks looked to the West as a beacon of civilization and science. Whatever ideas of progress they were able to conceive were automatically patterned on Western models. During the last centuries of Otto-man rule Church intellectuals such as, for example, Vikentios Damodos, Nikiphoros Theotokis, Evgenios Voulgaris, Neophytos Vamvas and others endeavoured to bring about a religious rebirth among the enslaved Greek people, bringing into the sphere of Greek life and thought the problematics of Western Christianity. In their works and sermons one can find unchanged many typical ideas of pietism, natural theology, the religion of feeling, ‘Christianity as culture’ (Kulturchristentum), and in general of Western theology as it was under the influence of the Enlightenment.

With the establishment of a university in the free Greek nation and the rise of academic theology, the influence of Western theology increased and dominated. In the university theology took on the form of an autonomous science organized according to Western prototypes alone. From the beginning Greek Orthodox academic theology was a mixture of pietism and rationalism. Theology, organized on conceptual, demonstrative and apologetic models, was sharply separated from the life and piety of the Church. Formally it did not cease to be Orthodox, obedient to the letter of dogmatic formulations. However, the separation of dogmatic formulations from the experience and spirituality of the Church, accompanied by a uncritical acceptance of the spirit and methodology of Western theology, was precisely the most serious betrayal of the character of Orthodox theology.

The Western or Latin captivity of Orthodox theology in Greece has also been discussed at length by Fr. John Romanides, Fr. George Florovsky, Met Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, and others; should you wish to learn more about this as well.

[/quote]

Again you're combining the concepts that came in from the Enlightment and which affected certain Protestant churches, specifically Germany, as being part of the Latin Church. There is a big difference between the secular concepts of the Enlightment that the intellectuals in Greece had accepted, with the structural conceptual dogmas of the RCC that has always been part and parcel of the Latin culture. You have to learn to differentiate one from the other. As I said, the Latin Church itself was being attacked, inwardly and outwardly by the concepts formed from the Enlightenment. As a matter of fact, I believe the Pope made himself infallible in matters of the Chuch so as to combat these ideas that were coming in with his bishops.

If some of these Latin concepts entered the Orthodox Church, which is unlikely from their viewpoints, then it was just a normal development and not deliberate.

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism. Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

While I understand the distinction you are trying to make between “Westernization” and “Latinization”, the claims of Latinization in Greek theology pertain to the influence specifically of Latin theological concepts, rationalistic approaches to theology, and pietistic devotion (to name just a few) which marked a departure from the theology of Fathers the centrality of hesychia and theosis.

My problem is not with Father Seraphim, but with those who have turned him into some sort of personality cult and are insistent on having him glorified. They are putting something in their hands, when it is not they but God that should decide. If Father Seraphim is truly a saint, then the focus of those who follow him should be on Christ and not on him, because when they put their focus on him, he is being discredited by their very action.

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.

Did I ever say we didn't need bishops, Michał Kalina? No I did not, never implied it.

We also aren't Latins we can celebrate particular holy people as being saints without glorification first. It begins when that person is venerated by the people where he lived and died. His memory is kept alive by the people who pray for his her soul and who ask him for intercession. Those persons who are great in their Christian spirit, glorious in their service to the Church, served as beacons illumining the world leave behind themselves a memory which is not confined to a narrow circle of people, but which becomes known throughout the whole Church, both locally and universally. Thus, it is only God who can make a saint.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

These are not my bizarre requirements of canonization, they are the bizarre requirements of the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course they might not be Orthodox enough for our new innovative Orthodox Church.

Can you prove that in any way?

BTW how can Athos glorify anyone since there are no bishops?

Who cares.

I trust the Mt. Athos monks over many of the bishops out there.

But they can't glorify anyone or prepare the chrism. They also cannot ordain anyone. We are not Protestants. Bishops are required.

Did I ever say we didn't need bishops, Michał Kalina? No I did not, never implied it.

We also aren't Latins we can celebrate particular holy people as being saints without glorification first. It begins when that person is venerated by the people where he lived and died. His memory is kept alive by the people who pray for his her soul and who ask him for intercession. Those persons who are great in their Christian spirit, glorious in their service to the Church, served as beacons illumining the world leave behind themselves a memory which is not confined to a narrow circle of people, but which becomes known throughout the whole Church, both locally and universally. Thus, it is only God who can make a saint.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints. Saint Nektarios was rare in that there were so many miracles attriuted to him from the first day of his death, that he was declared a saint in twenty five years.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

And some of them had had sex!

Indeed! We also have the thousands of saints glorified in recent years by the Russian church, the New Martyrs and Confessors, who suffered, and, in the case of the martyrs, died for their faith during the Soviet period of 1917-1991. There are also those who suffered in the European concentration camps of the Second World War. These saints span the whole spectrum of stations in life: clergy, monastics, children and youths, married and single laymen and women, of noble ancestry and peasant stock.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Indeed - and much longer than 100 years also. Several Romanian saints who were glorified in the early '90s for instance after up to about 500 years.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth. It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.

Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance. I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

100 years? Who set that?

The Polish Church in 2001 (or 03 or something like that) glorified several dozens op people most of whom had died no earlier than 60 years prior to glorification.

And some of them had had sex!

Must not be an Orthodox Church, then. It takes at least 1,000 years in unpurgatory for people who have had sex to become saints. I know this because I never fast and never lie. Besides that, Mount Athos.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years

Logged

"Christian America is finally waking up to what fraternities and biker gangs have known for years: hazing works!"

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth. It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.

Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance. I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.

I guess you can see why the custom of waiting 100 years was observed at least part of the time. Not every ROCOR bishop supported St John's glorification, for example: Abp Anthony of Los Angeles refused to allow icons of St John in his churches until his retirement. There are still people at Jordanville who remember Fr Seraphim personally, and not all of them think that highly of him, at least going by what a former seminarian told me. A premature glorification might cause friction.

It can be difficult for people who knew someone personally to move from that to veneration, even if they're agreeable to it. If a holy person was a family member, he or she remains such, even as an officially glorified saint, and it can be a challenge to contemplate that. I know of one instance where a man back in the old country was indeed a holy person, noted for almsgiving, preaching, and even being warned of his death, but his descendants don't see anything extraordinary about him to venerate him. He's just grandpa. I wonder how many other people there are like this who don't manage to be venerated as saints, even though they were holy, just because no one thought of it.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years

St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol' and the Crimea: Died 1961, glorified 1995. 34 years.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge? Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock. Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ. There is a big difference you know? On a whole, saints are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives. God allows it in order to humble them. One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ.

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself, then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint.

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

Yup. St John of Shanghai and San Francisco's earthly life ended in 1966, he was officially glorified as a saint in 1993, a mere 27 years later. St Matrona of Moscow died in 1952, she was officially glorified in 1999, 37 years later. I'm sure I could uncover more examples.

St. Justin Popovich was about 31 years

St Luke the Surgeon of Simferopol' and the Crimea: Died 1961, glorified 1995. 34 years.

Glorifying saints in such a short time could be something recent. I know that when people were clamoring for Saint Nektarios to be glorified because of the on going miracles through his intercession, the Greek Church was pressured to glorify him in twenty five years. At the time it was considered highly unusual. I heard people say in and around the 1960's, that it usually takes about one hundred years.

Glorifying saints in such a short time could be because of our mass communication, and the way knowledge is passed from one person to another?

It can be difficult for people who knew someone personally to move from that to veneration, even if they're agreeable to it. If a holy person was a family member, he or she remains such, even as an officially glorified saint, and it can be a challenge to contemplate that. I know of one instance where a man back in the old country was indeed a holy person, noted for almsgiving, preaching, and even being warned of his death, but his descendants don't see anything extraordinary about him to venerate him. He's just grandpa. I wonder how many other people there are like this who don't manage to be venerated as saints, even though they were holy, just because no one thought of it.

There are many people like this. I heard my mother tell of this woman who the kids would throw stones at in the old country, because they considered her crazy. Well one day a highly educated captain saw her elevated in the air as she was walking to church to receive the Eucharist. I guess God was trying to tell them something.

I have some family members like this as well, even though it's doubtful they would be of the status we consider gloryfied. My great grandfather in his old age was the caretaker of a church dedicated to our Theotokos. One day it was late and he told my grandmother not to go home but to sleep in the church. Well she saw him suddenly get up and asked him what he was doing. He said he was going to light the candle in front of her icon, because whenever it goes out he hears a woman's voice calling him.

I also had a grandaunt who had some frightening experiences with demons attacking her house at night which were exactly the same experieces as those of a well known Catholic saint. I never met her, but I do know that she was very poor, and that she did donate a crystal chandelier to the Church. My granddaughter was baptized in that church and one of the pictures taken is of a crystal chandelier. I can't help but think it's the same chandelier donated by my grandaunt.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge? Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock. Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ. There is a big difference you know? On a whole, saints are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives. God allows it in order to humble them. One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ.

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself, then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint.

Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?

Mount Athos is under the Patriarch of Constantinople, so if someone dies, and they pass all the criteria for glorification, (which usually takes about one hundred years), the Patriarch will then declare them saints.

There are so many examples of saints that have been glorified in under 100 years. Where are you getting your information?

PP

I don't know from where it emanates, but the "100 year" practice is a very old, ancient perhaps, practice, the theory being that no one alive at the time of "Recognition," could have known the saint, eliminating any possibility that someone could tell of a scandal related to the life of the saint on Earth. It was never a hard and fast rule because Orthodox Christian saintly recognition emanates from the local people who knew the saint and respect his resting place; saintly recognition starts at the local level.

Unrelated to this comment, Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras released an encyclical in the early 1950's about the process of the "Recognition" of a saint that has received general acceptance. I don't know where to find it, neither do I recall anything about what it says, however.

I disagree with you on the scandal part, since God allows saints to be calumniated in order to lessen their pride, so if there was any scandal, it would have been known long before their death. More than likely it's so people won't be fooled into believing someone is a saint because what they said and did happened to appeal to their contemporary mindset, or to their basest instincts. Also satan has been known to do things that might seem miraculous to some.

I'm surprised that anyone would object to Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco being glorified considering his many virtues and charisms, but I shouldn't be. Many a bishop, priest, monk and nun suffered from what we know as 'envy'.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge? Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock. Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ. There is a big difference you know? On a whole, saints are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives. God allows it in order to humble them. One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ.

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself, then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint.

Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?

I don't know, you tell me? As for me, I haven't seen any signs from God or heard of any virtues of his being above and beyond those of other monks. All I've read so far is that this person said good words, and that person said good words, and that he is venerated in this place and that place, as if trying to impress into me that I should want him to be glorified because they are saying so.

Look I don't want to denigrate Father Seraphim it's not fair to him. I read his books, and I do not find them on the spiritual level of a glorified saint, so I'm forced to question as to why so many on the forum insist on having him glorified? This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love. I did not find that in his writings.

The Western influences in Greece, Russia and all of Europe came from the Enlightenment, and it had nothing to do with the Latin Church.

The Enlightenment was a natural outgrowth of the extreme rationalism and scholasticism that developed in Roman Catholicism following the Schism.

You say extreme rationalism and scholasticism, but by whose interpretation and by whose standards? Certainly not mine.

Quote

Yes, many aspects of the Enlightenment were hostile to Roman Catholicism, but that is simply because the extreme rationalism and scholasticism of post-Schism Roman Catholicism was incompatible with authentic faith, authentic spiritual life, and theosis. The Roman Catholic Church created a monster, and the monster turned on its mother.

The Enlightenment was hostile to the Catholic Church... period. When the French revolution killed off all the priests in France, and forced the monks and nuns to leave the monasteries, and the RCC wasn't able to recover for decades, it is not something that I would call a little bit hostile. The Enlightenment was a reaction to the Catholic Church in the same way Nazism was a reaction to Communism.

Quote

Personally, I do not know anyone who fits the description of being in a Fr. Seraphim personality cult and insistent on having him glorified. As for my own views on the matter, I have indicated in my posts that I consider him to be a saint, but I have clearly said that I have no problem with you or anyone else if you do not consider him a saint. The problem I have, as I have repeated constantly, is that you have boldly claimed that he is definitely not a saint when you are obviously not familiar with his life, his teachings, or with the veneration that he receives from Orthodox throughout the world. You are right that the matter is in the hands of God and the bishops who have the authority to officially glorify him, and I am pleased to leave the matter there.

If I were to say that Father Seraphim might be a glorified saint, then I would be lying, and even if he was to be declared a saint by certain bishops and even as you believe; the whole Orthodox world, I would still know in my heart that he is not a saint, in the same way that I know the Elder Joseph of Vatopedi is not a saint.

Then you are claiming that you have a special charism of discernment that sets you above even the Church herself. Don't you think that the pinnacle of prelest?

Yes I do trust my discernment, and no it's not a pinnacle of prelest since in contrast to most, I'm lax on the rubrics of the Church, and strong in integrity, which as far as I can tell is the antithesis of prelest. So how about you? Which do you consider more important the rubrics of the Church or personal integrity?

Why must you oppose the two against each other?

Zenovia, when your "discernment" contradicts the wisdom of the Church, I don't care how you rationalize it. You have truly set yourself up as wiser than the Church, which is indeed the definition of prelest. In fact, your self-justification and comparison of yourself to others can only lead you deeper into prelest.

Oh so you are now my judge? Sorry sir, my discernment doesn't contradict the wisdom of the Church, only the failings of certain people within the Church...and that includes many bishops.

Now to get into this further, there is such a thing as a personality cult, and especially towards those that wear the frock. Saint Nektarios once said to a woman who said she loved him, that if she loved him then he hated her because she was to love Christ and love him only as a brother in Christ. There is a big difference you know? On a whole, saints are usually very inconsequential individuals, or they are intensely disliked because of their integrity, and that's why they are calumniated during their lives. God allows it in order to humble them. One thing they never do is attract people to themselves since their only focus is Christ.

Now if an individual is known to others and loved by others, not because of his manifold virtues and the charisms (such as miraculous cures)given to him by God because of his virtues, but simply because he drew them to himself, then I would hesitate before I called that person a Saint.

Are you saying that Fr. Seraphim was loved merely because he drew others to himself?

I don't know, you tell me? As for me, I haven't seen any signs from God or heard of any virtues of his being above and beyond those of other monks. All I've read so far is that this person said good words, and that person said good words, and that he is venerated in this place and that place, as if trying to impress into me that I should want him to be glorified because they are saying so.

Look I don't want to denigrate Father Seraphim it's not fair to him. I read his books, and I do not find them on the spiritual level of a glorified saint, so I'm forced to question as to why so many on the forum insist on having him glorified?

Zenovia, I think the loudest voice on this thread is yours insisting that Fr. Seraphim NOT be glorified. I really don't hear anyone here clamoring for his glorification anywhere near as loudly.

This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love. I did not find that in his writings.

Not at all, Zenovia, it is, in fact, the ancient practice. Long, long before any formal procedures of investigation and assessment of prospective saints were introduced into church practice, declaration of sainthood was by popular acclaim, and very often occurred within a few years of a saint's death, where he or she were not martyred. This was certainly the case for many early saints, such as the Cappadocian Fathers, St Nicholas of Myra, and many others.

A very important detail supporting this practice was the recording of a physical description of a prospective saint, so that, should that person be proclaimed a saint, the painting of icons would be made easier. This accounts for the great consistency in the physical appearance in icons of certain saints, across many centuries, irrespective of geographic or national provenance.

Logged

No longer posting here. Anyone is welcome to email me at the address in my profile.

This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love. I did not find that in his writings

Ummm, what? You cant be serious. Zenovia, please cite some references for your claims. While you're doing that, read up on St. Justinian and the whole loving others thing.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

This doesn't mean that saints must all think alike, quite the contrary, but there is a certain similarity in their compassion and love towards others, as well as their total lack of self love. I did not find that in his writings.

You continue to proclaim your certainty that Fr. Seraphim is not a saint, and claim that his writings do not express sufficient compassion, love towards others, and absence of self-love which should characterize the writings of the saints. And yet all of these judgments are based on impressions you had after reading two books by Fr. Seraphim thirty years ago? What books were they?

Please do us all a favor and refrain from further judgments concerning him until you have taken the time to read his biography and to familiarize yourself more with his life, his writings, and the miracles that have occurred through his intercessions following his repose.